Originally Posted By ecdc If a virus emerged in the United States that killed nearly four-thousand people in just over three months, what do you think the response would be? Nearly four-thousand people have died since the Sandy Hook shooting. Gun deaths in America are a critical public health crisis. But the NRA lobby (that works for gun manufacturers) acts as a barrier. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul vowed to filibuster any Senate attempts at gun control. We are failing as a nation to address this issue. In the meantime, a five-month old baby here in Utah had a dose of American freedom pass through his brain. <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56114075-78/petersen-american-fork-shooting.html.csp" target="_blank">http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/n...html.csp</a>
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I remember when the AIDs virus first came to light, and many people said it was God's revenge against homosexuals, and saw no reason to do anything about it. Somehow, I get the feeling that many people in America think gun violence is just Gods way of thinning the herd. That is, of course, until it happens to someone they care about. Bottom line? A Hell of a lot of people out there just don't give a damn.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It is a public health crisis, and that is going to be the key to rational gun control and gun safety laws that most Americans will get behind. The NRA will oppose anything that affects the sales of guns and ammunition, just like the tobacco companies did. But things will change.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Attitudes toward guns and Americans are too established to ever change. Just like gay marriage will never become acceptable to most people, and we'll never have a black president.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip At least 60% of gun deaths are due to suicide, and I don't know how you would change that with increased gun control. I doubt anyone commits suicide with an assault rifle. Toughened registration probably wouldn't do much either. Less than 2% are accidental, which is the only number you can really compare to a deadly virus. Legal interventions are the cause of about 1% of gun deaths. The remainder are homicides, and how many people who commit homicide would worry about obtaining a gun legally? There are so many guns out there right now that anyone who wants one could obtain one illegally. I've never owned a gun and never intend to. But outside of confiscation of existing weapons, I don't see how any new law is going to change things much if at all. I don't think I need to remind anyone that Chicago has among the strictest gun control in the nation but at the same time has rampant gun deaths.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<I don't think I need to remind anyone that Chicago has among the strictest gun control in the nation but at the same time has rampant gun deaths.>> But they only have to go a few miles to legally purchase a gun. This is the problem with local or even state wide gun control laws. It needs to be done on the federal level. As example of how local laws restricting access to some things: When I started living in Boston, it was illegal to purchase alcohol on Sundays in Massachusetts other then by the drink in bars and restaurants. So, what did people do if they needed a bottle, or case on a Sunday? They drove across the border to either New Hampshire or Rhode Island to buy their alcohol. Our founding fathers were in an era where it took days or weeks to travel from state to state. So most did not. Today, you can travel the same distance in a few hours. Some things just scream for national control rather then state (or local) control.
Originally Posted By ecdc I imagine when MADD created their push against drunk driving, many of the thoughts went something like: It's unfortunate that so many people die, but new laws won't help. Drunk drivers don't obey the law, that's the point. This will only harm responsible drinkers who never get behind the wheel. Besides, you'll never eliminate all drunk drivers. Anyone who thinks you will stop all drunk drivers is living in a fantasy, but if you want to trust government to do everything, be my guest.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly, EdisYoda. <But outside of confiscation of existing weapons, I don't see how any new law is going to change things much if at all. > If the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, which didn't infringe on anyone's 2nd amendment rights or ability to get a gun, had simply been allowed to remain in place, Adam Lanza's mother would not have been able to walk into her local gun store and buy the gun that killed all those kids, OR the huge magazines. She would still have been able to get guns; just not THAT gun. And she wasn't the kind of person who was going to go get it illegally; she simply bought what was available on the shelf. So she wouldn't have had it if the assault weapons ban had remained in place (she bought it in 2010 or 2011 IIRC). And so her son wouldn't have had it. That's how. Also, we now know that after Lanza had emptied one of those huge magazines and was changing to another, 11 kids escaped from one of those classrooms, while he was changing it. How many more kids might have escaped if he'd had to change magazines more often? CT, at least, has reinstituted its ban. That's good, but it's a small state. You can be over the border to another state very quickly. That's why national laws are important. <how many people who commit homicide would worry about obtaining a gun legally?> This has always seemed a strange argument to me. We don't say this about any other sort of law, but the NRA has repeated this so often that otherwise reasonable people pick this up as though it were reasonable. We don't say "Well, why have laws against arson? Arsonists are just going to set those fires anyway." If you have tougher laws against gun trafficking, a). regular people will still be able to get guns; b). the people who get them illegally, and are presumably more likely to use them in a bad way could in some cases be prosecuted for THAT, before they commit a murder (say, the police raid a house for drugs and find illegal guns instead); c). the traffickers themselves could face prosecution that's more than a slap on the wrist, discouraging trafficking.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 People of color living in our cities get shot on a daily basis=reported by the media as just another story, politicians and public mostly ignored White people living in our suburbs get shot=media, politicians and public we have do something about this gun violence, this simply cannot stand
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I agree that improved enforcement and education due to MADD's efforts have been very successful in reducing deaths from drunk driving. I also think the situation was very different from what we face with guns. Most people who caused traffic accidents and caused harm to themselves and others after drinking never intended to do so. They had "one too many" without any real knowledge of what one too many was. Much of the success has come through education... making people very aware that yes, that third drink at dinner may well make you an illegal driver. With guns, the deaths caused by suicide and homicide are FULLY INTENTIONAL. That makes them much more difficult to stop. The success of MADD also involved greater enforcement of existing laws. In most places driving while drunk had long been a crime, but enforcement was lax. If person was a first-time offender they were typically let go with a warning. My father, a once a year drinker, was stopped once on the freeway coming home from a New Year's Eve party. He was told to get off the freeway, take side roads home, and to be careful. No citation was issued. We have much the same case today with gun laws. Everyone mentions gun shows as part of the problem, but there are ALREADY laws stating that sales at gun shows must be recorded. The law is just not enforced. I think the situation with gun crime is much more like the situation with illegal drugs than it is with drunk driving. With illegal drugs you also have people who knowingly and intentionally violate the law. The "war on drugs" has been a massive failure. I doubt a "war on guns" would meet with any greater success.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>With guns, the deaths caused by suicide and homicide are FULLY INTENTIONAL.<< I disagree. They are fully intentional in the moment, but most people do not premeditate the death of a family member--it happens in the moment. Education can help with that - helping people understand that, yes, just like an average Joe can turn into a drunk driver, an average Joe in a moment of rage can pull the trigger. >>The "war on drugs" has been a massive failure. I doubt a "war on guns" would meet with any greater success.<< Except no one is talking about a war on guns. This is what keeps happening in this conversation. It's like no one wants to do anything and our culture is saying, "We have to accept 30,000+ gun deaths a year as part of our "freedom." Nothing can be done. Well I say BS. We have no claim to being a great nation if we can't take steps to reduce gun violence. The war on drugs is a failure because we focus on punitive results and zero tolerance. No one is talking about outlawing all guns completely, the way all illegal drugs are. We're talking about reasonable restrictions (no one needs an assault rifle), education, and reasonable boundaries for guns. Saying nothing can be done is cynical and lazy.
Originally Posted By ecdc The point with gun laws is to establish boundaries of socially acceptable behavior. It isn't to guarantee that everyone will follow the law. This is how all laws work. I have a friend who's a high-level administrator at a college in a conservative state. He has to constantly deal with the false conservative mantra that "banning guns on campus just tells the bad guys that no one is armed." His point is that by establishing no-gun zones, it sets a boundary of what's acceptable. Everyone knows what's okay and not okay, and it makes it much easier to spot problems BEFORE they happen. If you have a student who shows up with a gun in his bag in a no-gun zone, then you know you have a problem to address because you have someone knowingly and deliberately crossing the boundary. If you have a gun free for all on campus, you have no way of identifying who might be a problem and who isn't. This is how it works with most laws. It's why we have them--not because people will never ever break them, but because it establishes boundaries and expectations of order in a society. So it's really time to just dispense with the argument that criminals don't obey laws.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I agree with what you are saying, but are new laws necessary to accomplish it? Education is possible under existing law. Posting buildings and areas as"gun free" is currently allowed and frequently done. Sandy Hook was a "gun free" area. It didn't do much good. Bans on "assault weapons" are an easy sell because they look (and potentially are) very scary weapons. Yet the fact remains that they account for less the one-half of one percent of gun fatalities. Although additional law may allow us all to congratulate ourselves on a job well done and figure the problem is taken care of, in reality it won't accomplish much. Real progress will be made through exactly the items you mention... education and enforcement of existing laws and "gun free" areas. It may not be as "sexy" as new laws and won't provide he "Mission Accomplished" moment that a new Federal law would provide. But ultimately those efforts would be more successful. You already know and have stated what would make a meaningful difference, and new law is not needed to proceed in those areas.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck What do you do when millions of voters are convinced that new laws will achieve nothing, and will only serve as stepping stones to even more rigid laws? What has the threat of strict new gun laws done? It has increased the sale of assault weapons and ammo to unprecedented levels. If some homicidal freak didn't have his weapon before this, I would imagine he has it now, probably two or three. All we need is to initiate a strict licensing program for all gun owners. Background checks, firearms safety, on range training, all included. Anyone in possession of a firearm who is not licensed would forfeit the weapons and face criminal charges. I would imagine the NRA would find something wrong with that as well.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I agree with what you are saying, but are new laws necessary to accomplish it?<< I'm with you. Honestly - I probably sound more confrontational than I intend. I don't know that new laws will help in the sense that they'll directly impact crime. But over time I think new laws can help in the sense that it creates a social conscience and those boundaries of acceptability. If, for example, we have an assault weapons ban, over time it creates a stigma on those guns. Except among the most diehard, it creates a sense of pushing those weapons to the margins, and in ten years or twenty years, people might see those weapons as absurd and not a part of the 2nd amendment at all. The idea of owning one becomes more and more reprehensible, just as the idea of getting behind a wheel drunk does. I also think a lot of this is all those self-labeled "responsible gun owners" and those of us who don't own or much care for guns getting together. There are conservative state legislatures passing laws *requiring* gun ownership, they're saying guns in schools and churches are totally cool, they're saying guns everywhere is the solution. So there's two ways this can go: We can decide that we're a hyper-gun culture, where we quite literally want guns everywhere, or we can say that we're not a gun culture, that guns in your home are fine, guns for hunting are fine, but beyond that, we don't allow guns in public. You have no business going to a movie and sitting next to my kids with a Glock strapped to your person. I do think passing laws, over time, helps create the culture I'd rather be a part of instead of the one Wayne LaPierre wants.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda >>I agree with what you are saying, but are new laws necessary to accomplish it?<< I'm not sure new laws are necessary, but CONSISTENT laws across the country are definitely necessary.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I also think a lot of this is all those self-labeled "responsible gun owners" and those of us who don't own or much care for guns getting together.>> I agree. I don't like guns and would never have one in my home. They scare me. But I agree with you that common ground is possible to find if everyone just dials down the rhetoric a bit. We need long-term solutions and they always take time. After Iraq I'm very leery of "Mission Accomplished" moments. We may have won the "Battle of Baghdad", but I'm not convinced we won the war. We didn't have a long-term plan in place, and by the time we realized that it was too late to be as effective as it would have been if formulated in advance. That is where MADD has been effective. They realize that while changing the legal limit from .10 to .08 was a step in the right direction, they still need to concentrate on education and enforcement to be effective.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer NRA lobbying made it illegal for the government to fund research into the causes of gun violence and to determine effective ways of reducing it. The gun lobby had seen what happened with tobacco and drunk driving and seatbelt laws and didn't want the same thing to happen with guns. Now the government can fund that research again - or at least it can legally, but the anti-knowledge GOP is doing what it can to cut funding for public health research in all areas.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<The war on drugs is a failure because we focus on punitive results and zero tolerance. No one is talking about outlawing all guns completely, the way all illegal drugs are>> I think if you legalize drugs in this country you might actually solve the amount of illegal guns that do come into this country. Chicago has been mentioned about having the strictest gun laws but something is not working because they have the highest murder rate. They say you can go one county over and purchase a gun. Does anyone honestly think your average gang banger is going into a gun shop to purchase a gun? They're likely getting their guns from the trunk of a car.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think if you legalize drugs in this country you might actually solve the amount of illegal guns that do come into this country.<< I haven't read a lot on this, but it makes a heck of a lot of sense. That may very well be true.
